(a) Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge selection process held in “Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High court of Judicature at Patna” by the Supreme Court of India
(b) The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim education society that “All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged
(c) The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardamom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
(d) The Supreme Court of India held in ‘Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court Judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
Code :
The question asks to identify the correct statements among the given options, referencing specific Supreme Court of India judgments.
Analyzing Supreme Court Judgments
- Statement (a): Refers to Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High court of Judicature at Patna. The Supreme Court held that persons in Government or Judicial service are not required to resign from their posts to participate in the District Judge selection process, provided they obtain necessary permission. Therefore, statement (a) is correct.
- Statement (b): Refers to S. Kazi v. Muslim education society. The Supreme Court clarified that while a tribunal whose order is challenged is often a necessary party, it's not universally required in all proceedings. The statement implies that not all tribunals are mandatory parties when their orders are challenged, which aligns with the nuances discussed in such cases. Therefore, statement (b) is considered correct.
- Statement (c): Refers to Cardamom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of social security provisions, viewing them as integral to the functioning and stability of the legal system and the welfare of legal professionals. Hence, statement (c) is correct.
- Statement (d): Refers to ‘Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others. This statement claims High Court Judges are exempted from airport frisking. There is no widely established Supreme Court ruling granting such a blanket exemption for High Court Judges from routine security checks like airport frisking. Security protocols are generally applied based on regulations. Therefore, statement (d) is incorrect.
Determining the Correct Option
Based on the analysis:
- Statement (a) is correct.
- Statement (b) is correct.
- Statement (c) is correct.
- Statement (d) is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct combination of statements is (a), (b), and (c).
Final Answer Selection
The option that includes only the correct statements (a), (b), and (c) is the correct choice.
Important Questions from Judiciary
- Which of the following types of cases is NOT generally taken up by Lok Adalats in India?
- On 15 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an immediate direction to the Centre to set up dedicated courts to deal with which cases?
What key principle did the Supreme Court emphasise in the 2024 Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra case?
- Which of the following is true about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India?
- Which Indian judgment laid down the concept of 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution?
